1. The Cardiac Waiting Game: Are Patients Prioritized on the Basis of Clinical Need?
- Author
-
Keogh B, Soljak M, Michael Gill, Margaret Thorogood, Susan Langham, and Charles Normand
- Subjects
Male ,Waiting time ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Scoring system ,Patients ,Waiting Lists ,Bypass grafting ,Audit ,Appropriate use ,Severity of Illness Index ,State Medicine ,03 medical and health sciences ,Coronary artery bypass surgery ,0502 economics and business ,medicine ,Humans ,Coronary Artery Bypass ,Health Services Needs and Demand ,Health Care Rationing ,business.industry ,Patient Selection ,030503 health policy & services ,Health Policy ,Welfare economics ,05 social sciences ,United Kingdom ,Waiting list ,Emergency medicine ,Female ,Smoking status ,Cardiology Service, Hospital ,0305 other medical science ,business ,050203 business & management - Abstract
Waiting lists for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been a recurring problem for many hospitals, putting pressure on hospitals to manage waiting lists more effectively. In this study, we audited the records of 1594 patients who had coronary artery bypass surgery in 1992 and 1993 in three London hospitals, to assess their waiting time experience. Patients' actual waiting times were compared with an appropriate waiting time defined using an adapted version of a Canadian urgency scoring system. Influence of other factors (sex, age, smoking, hypertension, diabetes and obesity) on actual waiting time was assessed. A comparison of patients' actual waiting times with an appropriate waiting time, defined by the urgency score, showed that only 38% were treated within the appropriate period. Thirty-four per cent were treated earlier than their ischaemic risk indicated, and 28% with high ischaemic risk were delayed. Actual waiting time was associated with a patient's sex and smoking status but not with the other factors studied. The current system of prioritizing patients awaiting CABG is not concordant with a measure of appropriate waiting time. This could have arisen due to a number of factors, including the contracting process, waiting list initiatives, and methods of waiting list administration and patient pressures. The use of a standard method for prioritizing patients would enable a more appropriate use of resources.
- Published
- 1997
- Full Text
- View/download PDF